Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #4
Comments
-
"The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:"
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
Again, Mt. 28:19 holds no relevance to what was under discussion prior to this more recent attempt in your posting to go somewhere else in the discussion.
You would do well to validate what you cite in your posts. Below is the article from which the above contrived quote is found; and where it has been purposefully stripped of the context it was published in.
From page 2637 with context:
- "(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16:15 f occurs in a passage (vs 9–20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more esp. as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus” (see Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 7, 9, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supernatural presuppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2:38, 41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (cf Rom 6:3 ff; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by Our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle’s earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and gentile Christians alike." (Lambert, J. C. (1915). Sacraments. In J. Orr, J. L. Nuelsen, E. Y. Mullins, & M. O. Evans (Eds.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Vols. 1–5, p. 2637). The Howard-Severance Company.)
As I've mentioned before in another instance of a manipulated quote, V. G. Tasker's 1961 Commentary, it is important to recognize that phrases like, "it has been argued", "These results, it is affirmed", and "It is evident, however", are all clues to the reader that the writer is not arguing for that position.
In the future, utilizing a credible Internet resource to check the validity of supposedly authentic quotes would be to your favor.
Internet Archive.org, a large online digital library, is a great resource for this sort of thing when you don't have a particular resource in your own library.
-
Notice to what lengths a trinitarian will go to in the denial the Baptism in the name (Jesus Christ). None of @Pages resources mentions Jesus Christ because the trinity doctrine is an antichristian trope establish by the same apostates who in engaged in the turning the masses away from Christ.
Notice NONE of his resources name how the Apostles actually Baptized Followers of Jesus Christ in the First Century. Absent from the catholic dogma of the 4th century are:
With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.
Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.
But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.
Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Is the Christ divided? Paul was not executed on the stake for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
For it had not yet come upon any one of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his Name.
Notice others exposing the catholic baptism as spurious?
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
-
"Notice to what lengths a trinitarian will go to in the denial the Baptism in the name (Jesus Christ). None of @Pages resources mentions Jesus Christ because the trinity doctrine is an antichristian trope establish by the same apostates who in engaged in the turning the masses away from Christ."
"Notice NONE of his resources name how the Apostles actually Baptized Followers of Jesus Christ in the First Century. Absent from the catholic dogma of the 4th century are:"
First, and foremost, you're greatly mistaken in thinking I've entered into a discussion with you regarding Mt. 28:19 proper within this thread. Affirming, or denying, this text as original is not relevant to our previous discussion in this thread; nor, do I believe is the new entrant, Catholic dogma.
Therefore, your entire claim above is completely fabricated and false, as no such discussion exists between us in this thread on the Mt. verse; other than, the pointing out of poor and improper methodology used in your less than credible citing of supposedly trustworthy quotations.
I was, however, as made clear in my previous post, pointing out once again the continued citing of quotes that in their own, and complete, context do not at all agree with the position you say they represent.
In this case, the new misuse of a quote from an ISBE article taken out of its own context perpetuating falsehood; and, that there is a way for you to verify the validity of a quote via Internet Archive.org, a very helpful internet library resource should you choose to use it.
And by the way, you do have a thread available and specific to Mt. 28:19; where, to your hearts content, you can express yourself.
-
First, and foremost, you're greatly mistaken in thinking I've entered into a discussion with you regarding Mt. 28:19 proper within this thread. Affirming, or denying, this text as original is not relevant to our previous discussion in this thread; nor, do I believe is the new entrant, Catholic dogma.
@Brother Rando - The source of the false dogma is tantamount. The accurate scripture is: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in My Name," (Hebrew Matthew 28:19)
16 However, the 11 disciples went to Galʹi·leel to the mountain where Jesus had arranged for them to meet.m 17 When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in My Name, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
This fits how the Disciples of the First Century Baptized from supporting scriptures.
- Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
- “With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)
- “But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)
We do not need outside sources to tell us what would be the correct view. However, there is plenty of evidence mounting.
Quoted from Article Entitled "The Baptismal Formula"
"When Paul cast a demon out of a young woman, he said, “I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her” (Acts 16:18). He called the name of Jesus. When the sons of Sceva sought to cast out demons, they said, “We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth” (Acts 19:13). They knew that Paul cast out demons by using the name of Jesus, so they attempted to do the same. They were unsuccessful because they did not have faith in Jesus or a genuine relationship with Him.
Whenever the Early Church exercised the power and authority of Jesus to obtain a spiritual work, they always invoked the name of Jesus in faith. Baptism for the remission of sins is no exception.
Invoking the name
Theologians and church historians generally recognize that the Book of Acts gives the baptismal formula of the Early Church. The Encyclopedia of Religion and ethics states, with respect to New Testament baptism, “The formula used was “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name:” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible says, “The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:4-8 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3, suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the three-fold name, but “in the name of Jesus Christ” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus:”
This is the natural reading of the phrase, “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ;’ and a person must use questionable and twisted methods of biblical interpretation to deny that the words mean what they appear to mean. If this language were not a formula, it is strange that it appears so many times as if it were a formula without any explanation to the contrary."
